Talk:Chrissy Chlapecka

Birth date
Bringing this here to avoid an edit war - we have a tweet confirming the subject's birthday and a source confirming her age on a given date, from which a birth year can be calculated. I don't know how else to explain that this is WP:NOTSYNTH and WP:NOTOR - calculating someone's age based on a known birthday and a basic knowledge of linear time is not the same as unverified speculation, and not all synthesis is improper. This is a ridiculously overzealous enforcement on a Draft page of all things, Wikipedia has no firm rules, and I am begging User:Toddst1 to exercise common sense editorial judgement here. Invisiboy42293 (talk) 05:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is textbook WP:SYN:  WP:SYNTHNOT is an essay and calculating someone's age is different from synthesizing their date of birth from two sources, neither of which specify the DOB. Toddst1 (talk) 04:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia guidelines are not laws nor hard science and are meant to be applied with editorial discretion and common sense. There is zero original research involved in taking the birthday she has confirmed on multiple verified social media accounts, seeing how old she was on a given date, and putting two and two together based on simple logic. If you'd like, I'm more than happy to get a third opinion from another editor or even take this to the original research noticeboard to resolve this. Invisiboy42293 (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP and specifically WP:DOB is policy not a guideline. It's not optional for entitled editors whenever it's inconvenient for them to comply. Don't edit BLPs if you're not willing to provide WP:RSs.  Toddst1 (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I never said it was optional, I said guidelines (and yes, policies too) are meant to be applied with discretion and logic. You seem way more committed to the letter of Wikipedia law rather than the spirit. Invisiboy42293 (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It's clear you think your edits to WP:BLPs are not subject to WP:V by WP:RS. You're wrong. Toddst1 (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

In any case, conflict has been resolved at WP:NORN, a better and more direct source has been found, and the info has been restored with that better source. Fin. Invisiboy42293 (talk) 01:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Misandry?
I know this would be making the Neutral Point of View of this article be reduced, but as far as I know, there could be some controversy regarding Chrissy's misandrist behaviour (opposite of misogynist, since misogyny is feminine while misandry is masculine), but of course there were mentions of promoting criminal activity, but again, I would just stick to the current article as it is, but its up to the editors to decide, mainly because of my bias and stuff. MrDragonBoi (talk) 23:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Not only is that incredibly subjective and violating NPOV as you said, I'd argue it's not even notable enough to be worth adding. Nearly every female public figure who promotes feminism has been accused of misandry by their detractors. To be worth adding, such claims against her would need to be a) discussed in more than a passing mention by multiple credible third-party sources to show notability, b) be more substantial than just the general online criticism that nearly every large creator gets, c) ideally substantial enough for Chlapecka herself to have publicly responded (moreso than a general "I don't care about my haters" message on social media), and d) be presented in an encyclopedic, duly weighted manner that accurately reflects the nature of the claims and isn't just thinly-veiled biased mudslinging. To my knowledge, none of those criteria are currently met, and until they are, I don't think it's worth introducing inflammatory material that's guaranteed to attract bad-faith trolls.
 * Also as an aside, I'm unsure what you mean by "mentions of promoting criminal activity"? Unless you're talking about the Artistry section that mentions her condemning unjust imprisonment and supporting sex workers, which would be an awfully narrow and highly debatable definition of "criminal activity". Invisiboy42293 (talk) 04:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The promotion part was where she was posting TikToks that mentioned that you should do [criminal action] against a man, although I agree with your statement, and I personally should just leave it be. The reason why I used square brackets, was to avoid triggers (even though Wikipedia isn't censored) and that's not even notable enough either.
 * The main source(s) would be TikTok, but the use of original research is prohibited on Wikipedia, as well as some "sources/criticism" being from TikTok as well, but like I said, I would have to pretty much bugger off (or in less profane terms, let the stuff slide and not put fuel to the fire) and that's it.
 * MrDragonBoi (talk) 09:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the understanding. Yeah you're correct, TikTok would not be an adequate source for this, not only because of original research and subjectivity (you'd need to indicate who has accused her of misandry and cite reliable third-party sources for that being the case), but also because social media criticism is not always inherently notable - nearly every public figure has at least a few people complaining about them on TikTok and Twitter, and Wikipedia is not a newspaper or gossip magazine. Maaaaaybe if it was a TikTok of a notable person or group directly criticizing her and her responding, but even then it would still be ideal to wait for media outlets to cover it rather than relying on primary sources. Invisiboy42293 (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)